Re: [Development] Nominating Assam Boudjelthia as Approver

On 19.3.2020 11.25, Ville Voutilainen wrote: Patches here: https://codereview.qt-project.org/q/owner:assam.boudjelthia%2540qt.io Assam has been doing great work on Android, qemu, boot2qt, and a whole bunch of things. If things go as planned, he will be our Android maintainer. +1. Teammate

Re: [Development] Arttu Tarkiainen as approver

Seconding approver status proposals can officially be done by approvers and maintainers. As far as I can see, Tino, you are not one, so this doesn't count officially. See https://quips-qt-io.herokuapp.com/quip-0002.html#how-to-become-an-approver +1 for Arttu's approvership. On 11.3.2020

Re: [Development] A modest proposal: disable lower-case keywords (emit, foreach, forever, signals, slots) by default

On 15.2.2020 16.23, Marc Mutz via Development wrote: > Hi, > > C++20 will contain new classes with emit() member functions > (wg21.link/P0053). While that will only pose problems for users that > include the new header after (almost) any Qt header, this > should serve as a second shot

Re: [Development] Requesting a module for Qt JSON RPC and Qt Language Server

On 16.12.2019 17.39, Ulf Hermann wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to request a new module and repository for an > implementation of the JSON RPC and Language Server protocols: > > Name of the repository: qt/qtlanguageserver.git > Description: An implementation of the language server protocol >

Re: [Development] New repo as playground for potential "serialization" module?

On 6.12.2019 19.36, Arnaud Clère wrote: > > Name: QtDataTransforms ? > > Description: > QtDataTransforms long-term goal is to make it easy to move data > to/from specific Qt modules based on a common JSON-like data model > made of sequences, records, and basic data types. It defines a default

Re: [Development] New repo as playground for potential "serialization" module?

On 6.12.2019 19.36, Arnaud Clère wrote: > Hi, > > Thiago suggested below that I submit my API proposal for serialization > outside of QtCore to see whether it makes sense. > I understood it would require a new repo as a playground for a kind of > "preview" module. > Should I go on creating a

Re: [Development] Proposal: Eliminate soft branching phase from release process

On 15.10.2019 12.35, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > the gist is that this somewhat complicated downmerge process exists for > good reasons. it shifts the "logistical" load of dealing with the > branching from every contributor to the few people involved in the > branch management. > > history

Re: [Development] Notes from "C++17 language and std library features for Qt 6"

I managed to mangle copy pasting to the mail, so probably better to read from the wiki page rather than read everything twice in a tricky order. On 20.11.2019 21.20, Kari Oikarinen wrote: > Hi! > > Here are the notes for the C++17 related session held today at QtCS. I > tried my bes

[Development] Notes from "C++17 language and std library features for Qt 6"

Hi! Here are the notes for the C++17 related session held today at QtCS. I tried my best to capture the discussion, but there might still be a lot of errors. Notes are also in the wiki at https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_Contributor_Summit_2019_-_C%2B%2B17_Features_Notes # Language ## if constexpr #

Re: [Development] Two-digit dates: what century should we use ?

On 5.11.2019 15.44, Edward Welbourne wrote:> Hi all, > > Prompted by [0], I'm looking at what century to use for years, when the > text being read is expected to be in a "short format" that only includes > two digits. > * [0] https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-74323 > > tl;dr - how do

Re: [Development] Proposal: Eliminate soft branching phase from release process

On 15.10.2019 11.19, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 06:16:33AM +0000, Kari Oikarinen wrote: >> After thinking about it again, I agree with you that it's irrelevant. >> There could be a category of changes that would need to wait and I was >> describing

Re: [Development] Proposal: Eliminate soft branching phase from release process

On 14.10.2019 16.40, Kari Oikarinen wrote: > > > On 12.10.2019 14.14, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 12:04:20PM +, Kari Oikarinen wrote: > > > >> Currently there is a bit of uncertainty about when exactly the > >&

Re: [Development] Proposal: Eliminate soft branching phase from release process

On 12.10.2019 14.14, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 12:04:20PM +0000, Kari Oikarinen wrote: >> I want to propose eliminating soft branching phase and instead use the >> creation of the branch as a cut-off for feature freeze (or bug fixes >>

[Development] Proposal: Eliminate soft branching phase from release process

I want to propose eliminating soft branching phase and instead use the creation of the branch as a cut-off for feature freeze (or bug fixes for a patch release). Frederik already alluded that there has been some discussion about making this change in the email about the final downmerge to 5.13.2.

Re: [Development] Merging wip/qt6 to dev

Hi! wip/qt6 branch has been closed. Like Simon said, please retarget or abandon your changes that target that branch. You can move your change to target a different branch on the change page in Gerrit. From the upper right corner click the three dots and then "Move change". On 10/11/19 12:55

Re: [Development] Updating/changing "default" branch for qtbase repository

On 16.9.2019 15.10, Lars Knoll wrote: > >> On 16 Sep 2019, at 13:26, Albert Astals Cid via Development >> mailto:development@qt-project.org>> wrote: >> >> El dilluns, 16 de setembre de 2019, a les 13:22:22 CEST, Frederik Gladhorn va >> escriure: >>> On mandag 16. september 2019 12:22:06 CEST

Re: [Development] [Gerrit-admin] Cherry-pick mode for 5.12

ranch. >>> >>> Gerrit admins, could you please do the required changes in gerrit and >>> for the sanity bot? Let’s do one final down-merge of 5.12 to 5.13 >>> once that’s done. > > Kari Oikarinen (2 September 2019 15:13) replied: >> Sanit

Re: [Development] [Gerrit-admin] Cherry-pick mode for 5.12

On 2.9.2019 15.23, Lars Knoll wrote: > Hi all, > > According to QUIP-5 (http://quips-qt-io.herokuapp.com/quip-0005.html), we > should move the 5.12 branch into cherry-pick mode now that we have created > the 5.14 branch. > > Gerrit admins, could you please do the required changes in gerrit

Re: [Development] Moving to Gerrit 2.16.9

On 2.7.2019 15.13, Kari Oikarinen wrote: > > On 2.7.2019 14.59, Cristian Adam wrote: >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Development On Behalf Of >>> Frederik Gladhorn >>> Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2019 16:11 >>> To: Qt Project Developm

Re: [Development] Moving to Gerrit 2.16.9

On 2.7.2019 14.59, Cristian Adam wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Development On Behalf Of >> Frederik Gladhorn >> Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2019 16:11 >> To: Qt Project Development Mailing-List >> Subject: [Development] Moving to Gerrit 2.16.9 >> >> Hi, >> >> Just to keep the ball

Re: [Development] Moving to Gerrit 2.16.9

On 27.6.2019 17.53, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > > >> On 27 Jun 2019, at 16:10, Frederik Gladhorn wrote: >> >> On a related note, now that things are generally working with the new Gerrit, >> I was wondering if we want to consider plugins. There is one to add reviewers >> based on git blame >>

Re: [Development] Nominating Jukka Jokiniva as approver

On 27.6.2019 10.25, Frederik Gladhorn wrote: > Hi all, > > I'd like to nominate Jukka Jokiniva as approver for the Qt Project. Jukka has > been less visible in the past, since he was mostly involved with > infrastructure before, but he made the Gerrit upgrade happen and he is now > active as

Re: [Development] Gerrit Upgrade

On 25.6.2019 17.07, James McDonnell wrote: > Is HTTPS access still supposed to work? > > git push gerrit HEAD:refs/for/5.12 > fatal: https://jmcdonn...@codereview.qt-project.org/p/qt/qtbase/info/refs not > valid: is this a git repository? > > Did the paths change? Yes, it's still supposed to

Re: [Development] Gitlab at qt.io

On 9.4.2019 17.02, Richard Weickelt wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to know more about https://git.qt.io > > - What's the purpose and the future plan? It's an internal Gitlab instance for The Qt Company. It's mostly a place for people to put small things that don't belong anywhere in Gerrit and

Re: [Development] [Gerrit-admin] Shadertools repo request and some words about state of graphics

s like the batching renderer, texture atlasing, distance field based >> text rendering, and the ability to do custom materials will be available. >> All this comes with the disclaimer that this, if materializes, is going to >> be >

Re: [Development] CMake branch

regards, > Mikhail > ---- > *From:* Kari Oikarinen > *Sent:* Thursday, March 21, 2019 1:13 PM > *To:* Mikhail Svetkin; development@qt-project.org > *Subject:* Re: [Development] CMake branch > > > On 21.3.2019 14.00, Mikhail Svetkin wrote: >> * >> >> *

Re: [Development] CMake branch

Could you explain the stated disadvantage further then? -- Kari On 21.3.2019 14.21, Mikhail Svetkin wrote: > It will not block CI. > > > > > Best regards, > Mikhail > ---- > *From:* Kari O

Re: [Development] CMake branch

On 21.3.2019 14.00, Mikhail Svetkin wrote: > * > > * > > Hi everyone! > > > We’ve had an internal discussion about wip/cmake branch. > > > We thought maybe it is a good idea to merge wip/cmake into dev branch. > > > The advantages are: > >  - It allows our contributors to play with

Re: [Development] codereview, merge please

On 21.2.2019 9.08, Martin Koller wrote: > On Freitag, 15. Februar 2019 11:08:18 CET Andy Shaw wrote: >> Since it has the +2 you can click on the "Merge patch 2 to staging" now, is >> that button showing up for you? > > So now I did merge it to staging, but I got a "Qt CI Bot" mail stating that

Re: [Development] [Gerrit-admin] Branch for Qt 6

that already, as soon as we started doing that, IMO. >> >> But as soon as qtbase has a qt6 branch, configure in that branch will set >> that >> version, and then we can build other modules and test that conditional Qt 6 >> functionality, right? >> >> As soon as we have a qt6 bran

Re: [Development] Proposal: New branch model

On 28.1.2019 15.09, Jedrzej Nowacki wrote: > On Thursday, January 24, 2019 3:18:59 PM CET Kari Oikarinen wrote: >> On 24.1.2019 16.15, Edward Welbourne wrote: >> >>> Kari Oikarinen (24 January 2019 15:02) >>> >>>> The rest of the paragraph t

Re: [Development] Nominating Kimmo Ollila for Approver

On 25.1.2019 12.43, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 at 10:22, Teemu Holappa wrote: >> >> Hello All, >> >> I'd like to nominate Kimmo Ollila for Approver. He has joined The Qt Company >> more than five years ago. Lately he has been working on INTEGRITY RTOS >> support and

Re: [Development] Proposal: New branch model

etting a change in is distributed over multiple > branches. > The staging of the cherry-pick can happen in batches and controlled intervals > as > with merges. > > > > Simon > > -------- >

Re: [Development] Proposal: New branch model

That’s not very different from the > situation we had with Qt 4 some years ago. > > Cheers, > Lars > >> >> Qt6 and dev are going to diverge. Drastically, eventually. I don't >> know how to solve that. A new branching policy >> is not going to help with that. >>

[Development] Nominating Sami Nurmenniemi for Approver status

Hi! I'd like to nominate Sami Nurmenniemi for Approver. He has already been working in The Qt Company in the same team as I am for a good while. Sami has worked on (among other things): - Improving flaky tests - CI coverage for ARM platforms by using user mode QEMU - Demos for embedded devices

Re: [Development] Proposal: New branch model

On 24.1.2019 16.15, Edward Welbourne wrote: > Kari Oikarinen (24 January 2019 15:02) >> The rest of the paragraph talks about a situation where we will have two >> stable >> branches alive at the same time. Typically we don't, because once 5.x+1 is >> created, 5.

Re: [Development] Proposal: New branch model

On 24.1.2019 15.15, Jedrzej Nowacki wrote: > Last, but not least. The release branches are already in cherry-pick mode, so > again it is not different, amount of conflicts is the same, true one needs to > solve them earlier, but on the other hand you can prepare the conflict > resolution in

Re: [Development] Proposal: New branch model

On 24.1.2019 15.10, Edward Welbourne wrote: > Dnia czwartek, 24 stycznia 2019 09:08:29 CET Liang Qi pisze: >>> My concern is about "cherry-pick" a series of changes for a big >>> feature, especially during the period to have "dev" branches for both >>> 5 and 6. I don't have solution for this

Re: [Development] Proposal: New branch model

On 23.1.2019 17.51, Jedrzej Nowacki wrote: >Can we use annotate instead of cherry-pick -x? >-- > >No, but we should use it in addition. Annotations are mutable, therefore > are > not 100% trust worthy. If we have both, we could validate

Re: [Development] Proposal: New branch model

On 24.1.2019 11.49, Edward Welbourne wrote: > Olivier Goffart (24 January 2019 08:03) >> Let's start by looking at the "problem" > > Always a good place to start. > > On 23.01.19 16:51, Jedrzej Nowacki wrote: >>> My impression is that the current model works great for a single >>> release

Re: [Development] Proposal: New branch model

On 24.1.2019 11.11, Volker Hilsheimer wrote: > > >> On 23 Jan 2019, at 22:09, Allan Sandfeld Jensen > > wrote: >> >> On Mittwoch, 23. Januar 2019 21:42:35 CET Edward Welbourne wrote: >>> Jedrzej Nowacki wrote: > Advantages: > - no waiting for merges, a fix can

Re: [Development] Proposal: New branch model

On 24.1.2019 11.13, Edward Welbourne wrote: > 23.01.2019, 21:38, "Alex Blasche" : At the end of the day each cherry-pick is a merge too > > Merges and cherry-picks have a certain amount in common, but they are > not the same thing at all. > and they can conflict too. The conflict

[Development] Requests for Gerrit admins

Gerrit was for a long time taken well care of by Ossi and Frederik. In connection with Ossi's departure we've added a couple of new admins: - Kari Oikarinen - Paul Wicking - Jukka Jokiniva Frederik Gladhorn continues as well. Given the larger amount of people, to avoid duplicate work we'd like

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

On 15.1.2019 14.32, Lars Knoll wrote: >> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:18, Tor Arne Vestbø > > wrote: >>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:14, Allan Jensen >> > wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 12:22:11 CET Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > On 15 Jan

Re: [Development] Requesting a repository for Lottie-Qt implementation

On 10.1.2019 15.22, Uwe Rathmann wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 13:24:14 +0100, Vlad Stelmahovsky wrote: > >> Qwt is nice but supports only QWidgets, right? > > True, but Qt/Charts is also QWidgets only. > Not quite: https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qtcharts-qmlchart-example.html -- Kari

Re: [Development] Issues with 'Fixes' keyword

On 26.12.2018 17.58, Christian Ehrlicher wrote: > Hi, > > looks like under some circumstances the 'Fixes' keyword in the commit message > does trigger the automatic closing of a bug when the bug is in 'In progress' > state. Is this the intended behavior? Yes. You can use the "Task-number"

Re: [Development] Closing issues automatically with new keyword

On 21.09.2018 15:32, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: On 21 Sep 2018, at 13:32, Jedrzej Nowacki wrote: Shouldn’t that pick refs/heads/5.11? Tor Arne Yes, that is what happened. The first release branch for 5.11 is 5.11.0, therefore it marked 5.11.0 as fixed version. That doesn’t make any

Re: [Development] clang-format

On 20.06.2018 09:30, Lars Knoll wrote: > > >> On 19 Jun 2018, at 18:19, Ville Voutilainen wrote: >> >> On 19 June 2018 at 19:13, Philippe wrote: For the above reasons I'd lean towards not running it globally and just using it on new changes. >>> >>> +1, based on my clang-format

Re: [Development] clang-format

On 18.06.2018 12:04, Frederik Gladhorn wrote: Other parts sound good, so I'll just touch on the big question. > And then there is the big question when we run it once over the entire > codebase. I'd hesitate to ever run it over the entire codebase. * It will ruin plain git blame, since so

Re: [Development] Consistently flaky test QTabWidget test

Hi! I'm also taking a look at it. It's my change that broke it. The issue is that the test is getting some extra paint events on macOS. Previously it had a qWait(1000) that waited over them. Here's a change to add it back and stop blocking other integrations:

Re: [Development] Qt 5.12 schedule proposal & proposal for release process change

On 17.04.2018 12:08, Edward Welbourne wrote: Alex Blasche (maanantai 16. huhtikuuta 2018 16.47) ... I do like to emphasize though that the dates for first beta and first RC are important (and FF is alpha) because they define times when certain level of changes are no longer permitted (e.g.

Re: [Development] How to run QtBase autotests on a remote machine?

On 11.04.2018 15:06, Edward Welbourne wrote: > Alexander Richardson (11 April 2018 10:13) >> I am currently trying to get Qt to work on the CHERI CPU >> (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/security/ctsrd/cheri/cheri-faq.html) > > Sounds interesting. > >> I have now managed to get the first few unit

Re: [Development] Repository request: Qt Notifier

On 15.01.2018 17:25, Ryan Chu wrote: Hi all, I'm working on a task supporting "Push Notification" for Qt applications. This feature will be implemented on Android and iOS devices as the first stage. A new module called "Qt Notify" will be created for all platforms. Therefore I request a

Re: [Development] QML and Qt Quick versioning of our modules

On 07.12.2017 15:53, Frederik Gladhorn wrote: 1) sync minor versions to Qt release version: For Qt 5.11, we would provide QtQuick.Controls 2.11 This way, the challenge for the user is only to find out if it's version 1, 2 or 5. This sounds troublesome if Qt 6.0 comes when Qt Quick Controls

Re: [Development] New Qt 5.9.1 snapshot available

g> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development <http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development> ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] DBus signals for (dlclose'd) style plugin causing crash during application exit?

On 08.05.2017 09:47, Thiago Macieira wrote: On Sunday, 7 May 2017 22:56:53 PDT Sergio Martins wrote: On 2017-05-06 16:00, Thiago Macieira wrote: Someone could do that. I'd even appreciate just a backtrace from the deadlocked application. Have you asked the CI guys for such backtrace ? Why